Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!m2c!necntc!encore!bzs
From: bzs@encore.UUCP (Barry Shein)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: Window Warz
Message-ID: <3562@encore.UUCP>
Date: 5 Sep 88 13:54:54 GMT
References: <8809021443.AA12775@uunet.UU.NET>
Organization: Encore Computer Corp, Marlboro, MA
Lines: 46
In-reply-to: mo@prisma.UUCP's message of 4 Sep 88 08:53:30 GMT


From: mo@prisma.UUCP (Mike O'Dell)
>(1) X is a way to do device-dependent graphics across a network -
>	changing screen resolution screws the application.
>	This doesn't happen with NeWS.  There is also the toolkit issue.

I've been thinking about this and wonder if X has received too bad a
rap on this issue. To some extent this is an observation that the X
primitives are at a lower layer than NeWS primitives (ie. NeWS
certainly at some point translates to screen coordinates, it's just
that that layer is not generally visible.)

The only real weakness in X on this count (and it's serious) is the
lack of scaled font machinery in the server. If that were there then
device independant graphics could be left to the toolkits.

I suppose the whole geometry thing has to go out the window (so to
speak) also, encouraging things like =200x400 anywhere is a wrong
thought (although applications like xterm take it in row/columns which
is just fine.) That needs more thinking although the answer will be
simple (one obvious solution is to go for a troff'like notion of
units, 2ix4i means 2 by 4 inches, 200px400p means 200 by 400 points
etc, basically trivia to implement, unlike the font machinery stuff
which is hard.)

Proof: Crispin Goswell's postscript interpreter runs just fine under X
(it even has its own scaled font machinery which is not the place for
it, but it does work, given support in the server it could be moved
out.) I also have a half-written X toolkit which uses arbitrary units
for specifying all sizes, scaled fonts were the big bugaboo that have
slowed me down. X servers are happy to return the size of the screen
in inches and the number of pixels available in each direction (and
pixel depth), once that's queried the toolkit can appear device
independant.

So the real misunderstanding is the level at which X and NeWS sit.  X
is a remote device manager to a great extent, NeWS more resembles a
toolkit which might sit above something like an X (Goswell's ps
interpreter comes so close to this that it's hard to deny outright.)

Other than that I think Mike is right on the mark here, abstracting to
a look and feel will resolve the issue to a great extent. In fact, I
believe my comments above strengthen Mike's points, people are
probably asking the wrong question.

	-Barry Shein, ||Encore||